Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. That having been done, I move to set the amendment aside.

Mr. DOMENICI. The amendment is withdrawn?

Mr. DOMENICI. The amendment is still pending. I move to set the amendment of Senator Durbin aside.

Mr. DOMENICI. I want to set both amendments aside so that I can proceed with another amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the Durbin amendment be set aside and that the Campbell amendment be set aside so that we may proceed with the electricity amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, I congratulate my colleague from New Mexico on his superb argument and presentation. I regret that I have to disagree. But before I state a few remarks, because I believe my friend from Wyoming has done a very good job of telling the Senate why we don't need this amendment, I would like to ask the Senate and all the Senators and their staffs, who were paying attention on their behalf, to remember now that we are on that very important part of this legislation--the electricity section--which we understood many Senators were worried about, and we understood a number of Senators had amendments. I have known from the beginning that my friend, Senator Bingaman, had one or two amendments. But I heard other people saying: We don't want to hurry along here because this is a very important piece of legislation and we want to have a chance to offer amendments. Well, the time is now. I am very hopeful, and the majority leader has told me it is up to me. I look at my distinguished friend, who is very much on top of things in the Senate, the Senator from Nevada, and say that he told me and our leader to stay here as late as we can tonight to get all the amendments we possibly can on this subject. We know a lot of Senators are busy, but we know they were told we were going to be in session every day this week. We are going to work day and evening. Every evening we work, it takes away an extra day at the end of the week that will detract from our recess. So if Senators have amendments, get them ready. We want them after this amendment. When I am finished, and after my friend from Wyoming has another chance to speak, if he wishes, I am going to ask the minority side what they would like to do next. Mr. President, I say to Senator Reid, my desire is that we not vote immediately on the Bingaman amendment, although I am perfectly willing. It is 20 minutes of 7. There is nobody on our side saying we should not. Maybe Senator Reid knows some reasons. I much prefer Senators keep doing what they are doing but that somebody come down and offer another amendment. Then I prefer not to vote on that amendment. I prefer another amendment until we have as many amendments as we can get in by late tonight. Why do I want to work late tonight? Besides it being Tuesday and we want to finish this bill by Friday, it is the unspoken word that the other side of the aisle, more so than we do, wants to offer some clean- air type amendments that really do not belong on this bill but have historically or traditionally found their way on it because they do not have any other place to go. They want to offer some amendments. There are apparently two amendments on that side, at least, plus a couple of other amendments in the same vein. They wanted to offer them tomorrow, which can be nicknamed ``environmental day.'' We want to cooperate. To the extent we have to use more of the day for electricity amendments, we use less time for other amendments. I will in a very few words state my case. In 1935, I was 3 years old. I am not a student of what happened in the world during the Great Depression, but PUHCA was passed. It is funny sounding. It is terrible it had to have such an acronym, PUHCA, Public Utility Holding Company Act. It is almost one of those acronyms that cries out to never be called by an acronym, and it is better to be called the Public Utility Holding Company Act than PUHCA. Over the years, I have heard that funny word, and I did not even want to find out what it meant, but Public Utility Holding Company was a protective mechanism to make sure that during an era of pyramiding, where big money would buy up utilities, there was somebody watching. As an example, if one very rich bank out of Chicago, IL, started buying up companies all over the country and became a holding company--thus the title. Nobody is crying for the retention of PUHCA because there are so many other protections for that which it was invented. It is time for that funny name to disappear, and then it will not be used so much. We can then just say ``used to be PUHCA,'' and we will not have to talk about it. The truth is, as Senator Thomas said--and I agree--expanding FERC's authority to cover acquisition of generating facilities, which is part of Senator Bingaman's amendment, is unnecessary. Furthermore, this amendment preempts States' abilities to protect consumers. Repealing PUHCA will not preclude State and Federal regulators from protecting ratepayers. Access to books and records, as well as rules, regarding debt acquisition will protect investment made on behalf of ratepayers. Also, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission will continue to protect against antitrust violations, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which currently oversees PUHCA, has recommended on a number of occasions that it be repealed with certain consumer protections transferred to FERC and State regulatory commissions, as noted above. What we are doing is getting rid of PUHCA, the 1935 antiquated law. In place of it, we clarify the jobs FERC does today and expand it only in a limited fashion. Our amendment let's PUHCA review utility transactions. The new authority is granted over gas acquisitions of utility companies by an electric utility company. This protects consumers and promotes investment in that regard. Clearly, if ever there was a case where we are overprotecting, it is the utility companies. I mentioned how many protections already exist. PUHCA started disappearing into the woodwork and became subservient and almost consumed by the SEC--they run it. SEC said they do not need PUHCA anymore. Believe it or not, it is pretty certain, when we finally vote, we are going to get rid of PUHCA. It is like certain past Presidents recommended getting rid of PUHCA and 40 years later something happens. That reminds me of something interesting and funny. About 8 years ago, I was heralded as one who had passed the largest single sale of public property, and all I had done was to take the U.S. Government's ownership of converting highly enriched uranium for use by nuclear powerplants, which is owned by the public, which had been recommended 30 years before to be privatized, and I privatized it. I was heralded for having passed the first multibillion-dollar sale of property of the Federal Government. It is nothing new. It sure did not take any ingenuity, just like it takes no ingenuity to know that PUHCA ought to get out of here. In getting rid of PUHCA, the test that FERC applies is: Consistent with the public interest, we do not add new tests. Senator Bingaman's amendment does. I do not think we need to add new tests. I believe what is in the bill is adequate for the governance of FERC in that regard. When I introduced the bill, I told the Senate all the groups that liked this bill--the public-private ownership, all of them. And it is most interesting, they all think we adequately protect against whatever the evils might have been that PUHCA might have covered: Municipalities, the APRAs, the large public power companies. They think there is a pretty good balance just like it is. At some point in time I hope when we vote on this that Senator Bingaman will understand there are those of us who think what we put in the bill is perfectly adequate and well balanced with reference to protection in this area. I ask Senator Bingaman and Senator Reid if they are finished? Are we ready for another amendment?

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator truthfully, it is not understood how hard I worked and how much I worried and sweated to get to where we are, which is the pending matter. I want Senators to understand we have to get rid of it.

Mr. DOMENICI. So I do not want to do that. I want Senators to get their amendments, even if it takes us a little while longer. The Senator is implying there may be four, maybe five. I do not know. Might I ask Senator Bingaman if he has another amendment?

Mr. DOMENICI. Unless an agreement is worked out, Senator, we are going to have a vote tonight.

Mr. DOMENICI. My pleasure is that we have votes tonight, unless the Senate sends word, in its inimicable way, that we are going to get all the amendments on electricity in due course this evening, in which event I would say we will not have any votes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator like to work on a unanimous consent request that includes Senator Maria Cantwell?

Mr. DOMENICI. When does the Senator think she might know?

Mr. DOMENICI. Could the Senator inquire? What we could do then, while the Senator is inquiring, we could go with the second Bingaman amendment and we will stack them with a clear understanding that when we are ready, we will proceed in the same order they have been offered to vote on them.

Mr. DOMENICI. To the extent the Senator from Nevada desires and can be helpful--and that is strictly up to him--I would rather we get other Senators to offer amendments. Senator Bingaman has one. Are there any others? We know Senator Cantwell wants a lot of time and we would say to her she could be last tonight and take as long as she wants. We could then come in in the morning and take some more. I do not think we ought to have her come up and then say the only thing we did tonight was the Bingaman No. 1 and Cantwell all evening. I think we ought to be doing a little more than that.

Mr. DOMENICI. Let us make this effort: That Senator Bingaman would proceed for as long as it takes, Senator Cantwell will offer her amendment and take an hour tonight, and that we work on a UC request together while that is occurring. She will get her 2 hours tomorrow, and we will try to get a consent as to when we might finish. If not, I will go along and say we won't have any votes tonight.

Mr. DOMENICI. Let's try to do this: Let us assume that we had Bingaman No. 2 and the Senator from Nevada went off and tried to discern how many other amendments on this subject we have, and that he return and say what they are. I am perfectly willing then to try to set in motion an agreement that some of them would be taken up in the morning.

Mr. DOMENICI. If we do not know, we are going to stay here and see how many we can flush out. Does Senator Bingaman want to proceed?

Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I don't have any objection, but we have been talking for about an hour about that amendment and you, I say to the distinguished minority whip, have been saying the important thing is that she would have an hour tonight on her amendment. But we are not going to have her amendment. We thought it was going to be laid down so we would know what it is about.

Mr. DOMENICI. Can we have the amendment? That is all we want.

Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. He did. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOMENICI. I will be pleased to yield.